National Republican., 1887-08-18
Inquisition by Legislative Commits
sions.


Public, or rather hostile political opinion
is lndirg expression in the daily press in
support Of the action Of the Pacific railway
commission in attempting to compel Sena-
tor Stanford to disclose confidential CON-
nunlcations between himself and attorneys,
made in the management Of the property
over which he has had supervision as presi-
cent. The senator resists the inquiry. The
jssue thus presented between Congress and
the senator sinks to the depths of funda-
mental one. In forcing the issue Congress-
through this commission, asserts the propo-
sition that It can authorize n commission to
70 from state to state and invade the
privacy Of business relations under the
guise Of a legislative inquiry, and can COM
pei the disclosure Of conversations and
transactions which the law declares to be
privileged.
Senator Stanford opposes this assumed
power. If the United States have been
wrorged by the managers Of the Pacific
railway, complete, ample, and efficient
remedy exists in their favor against the
wrong doers and the railway companies
themselves in the courts where final judg
Inent csn be rendered. Congress can law
fully decide nothing by itself or by means
oftlis commission between the parties after
the ,vIdeIoe which the commission seeks
stall ave been produced and presented to
Corcress. Its want OF power to make
final decision of the questions and rights
involved results from the fact that such
dtcision can only be made by judicial
f,,l al Ind latt.
thority in this matter, nor has 1t constituted
the commission a judicial tribunal to settle
finally anything.
The test Is this II Congress is prosecut-
ing an inquiry, by means of this commits
sion, into matters involving private rights
and pecuniary obligations, in respect OF
which it can make no final decision bind
ing upon the parties to the controversy
when its inquiry is ended, then 1t is acting
without Jurisdiction and is carrying on an
usurpation dangerous to the government
itself, and threatening to every business in
terest in the land. Legislative power, says
Judge Cody, is authority under the consti-
tuition to make laws and to repeal them.
The Supreme Court of the United States,
in vol. l03, p. 100, ssys:
II Is believed to be one OF the chiet merits
OF the American system Of written constitu
tional law that all the powers entrusted to
government, whether state or national, are
divided into the three grand departments
the executive, the legislative, and the judicial.
That the functions appropriate to each ofthese
branches of government shall be vested In a
separate body OF public servants. and that the
perfection of the system requires that the
lines which separate and divide these depart
ments shall be broadly and clearly defined.
il is also essential to the successful working OF
this system that the persons entrusted with
power in any one OF these branches shall not
be permitted to encroach upon the powers
conhded to the others, but that each shall, by
the law of its creation, be limited to the exer
else of the powers appropriate to its own de-
pArtment and no other.
While the experience OF almost a century
has in general shown n wise commendabe
forlearance In each of these branches from
encroachments upon the Others II is not to be
denied that such attempts have been made,
and It Is believed not always without success
The increase in the number Of states, in their
population and wealth. aud in the amount OF
power II not in its nature TO be exercised by
the federal government, presents powerful
and growing temptations to those to whom
that exercise IL entrusted TO overstep the just
boundaries of their own department, aud en-
ter upon the domain of one of the others, oI
10 assume powers not entrusted to either oi
them.
1t makes no difference In the application
of the principles above expressed that tht
government has an interest In the Pacific
railways or that the railways are in debt tc
the government. Whatever rights the gov
erpment have in them or TO their property
fprrg out OF contracts made between the
government and the companies owning and
operating those roads.
These rights are the subject OF judicial
inquiry, definition, and enforcement, but
not of congressional inquiry, definition, OIL
enforcement.
This inquiry cannot be justified as an ex
cuse for changing contracts as they now
exist, for Congress has no power to change
a contract once made, Hence 1t is cleal
that the only legal investigation that car
le made between the government and The
Pacific railways is judicial one, in which
the procedure is fixed, orderly, and con
elusive when completed.
II Congress desires to repeal and declar